Wednesday, July 23, 2014

The Cart Before The Horse, Once Again

I've blogged before about Prohippine Libertarianism HERE, and it's time to bring it up again. While Obama is doing his best to relocate all of Central America into the small towns of the United States, in order to create an even bigger permanent class of government dependents and ensure his "fundamental transformation of America," some of us are raising hell about it, most Democrats are following the herd in their sheeplike fashion, Republicans are either in the same herd or twisting themselves into ideological pretzels trying to avoid being called "racists," and libertarians, for the most part, are being Leninist "useful idiots," by applauding the invasion for reasons of "ideological purity." I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

Right now, on a libertarian forum, the usual maddening reactions to all this are taking place. First up was the implication that any opposition to all this is "racism," which is a useless word to anybody but propagandists, and it's very useful to them indeed. Then "xenophobia" was mentioned, which sounds like a mental disease, but is just a word for the tendency we all have to lock our doors at night.

You'll notice that, so far, all these arguments are the exact same arguments, if you can call them that, which you constantly hear from liberals. Libertarianism is not a subdivision of liberalism, and politically correct blather has no place in it.

Then, in a more libertarian-thinking fashion, John Borland pointed out that the drug war is a big cause of all this, and that if that were ended, the immigration crisis would end. I don't think that's the whole cause, but it's a big one, and has the virtue of being logical, instead of emotional. But then he made this statement:

"Anyone willing to walk that far for a welfare check, is exactly the kind of go getters, dreamers, and economic new blood our country needs. I would hire people like that in a heart beat, any entrepreneur with half a brain would."

No. First off, if you're going to that much trouble to get welfare, you're certainly not going to give it up for a stupid job, are you? And also, doesn't this sound interestingly similar to the liberal/neocon rhetoric about how many immigrants do startups, etc., and are somehow better than the native born? This is what we get from the immigration-enthusiast media all the time, as they interview all the "dreamers" who were brought here as children, and have performed miraculously in academia and the military. But they carefully don't interview, or even allude to, members of M-13 or other violent criminals. Indeed, it's media policy to leave out, as "irrelevant," the immigration status of thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., leaving us to think of immigrants, legal or illegal, as some sort of magnificent improvement, automatically, to our demography. A look at the actual statistics, if you can find them, leads to a quite different conclusion. For every "dreamer," you get a brood of Tsarnaevs.

Then John said that he disagrees that they're here for welfare checks, and that they don't get welfare checks or even driver's licenses, the poor things. Pure drivel, again just duckspeaking all the liberal talking points. Illegals get all kinds of freebies, from flat-out welfare checks granted by welfare workers whose incentive is to increase the number of people on welfare, thereby ensuring their jobs and self-importance, to free education, to aid given to illegals who have children born here, or children they say were born here. The liberals who run the welfare system have zero incentive to deny freebies to anybody, including immigrants, legal and otherwise.

But another libertarian, my kind of libertarian, Lea Nicole, whose page is HERE,  knocked all this nonsense into a cocked hat thus:

"Borders being open is just an obvious failure of an idea. We are already overpopulated and everyone wants to be in the land of America . How the hell are we gonna support everyone... since our goal in our current government is to support everyone?"

Any purist libertarians want to refute that — with something other than a call for ideological purity, that is?
---------
Quibcag: This is illustrated by Masumi Sera, of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), because she's a smart girl, and would very likely say something smart like this. That, and she's a bona fide cutie-pie.

3 comments:

  1. I enjoy making them turn into Logic Pretzels by pointing out, when they claim borders are "imaginary," that so too is property - and the only way to defend it is with violence or the threat of it. If they can't do that then their property is now MY property.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The first thing that needs to happen is for the "purist libertarians" to realize that they are not purist when they argue that there is a right to travel" in a market based world.

    In a market based world a person in Mexico City would have no right to travel to Chicago. In such a world they would have to negotiate with every land/air/water owner along the way and none of these owners would give away unlimited rights of travel. Give away unlimited right to a property and you give away the property since property is based on limiting rights to it.

    The right to travel is a socialist concept using massive government force to create corridors to bypass the individual owners. So getting rid of national borders just opens the door to many more borders based on land ownership all of which would have restrictions and costs on the traveler. Some of the restrictions and costs would be low, some high, and would be applied in whatever way the owners see fit.

    The so-called purists fail to realize how much government has effected the world and that rejecting government also rejects things that the purists like such as the ability to move from one place to another in government provided travel corridors.

    A market based world is not a world of unlimited freedom, its a world of negotiation with 7 billion other people where compromise is needed and costs and restrictions are based on individual negotiations

    ReplyDelete
  3. "And also, doesn't this sound interestingly similar to the liberal/neocon rhetoric about how many immigrants do startups, etc., and are somehow better than the native born? This is what we get from the immigration-enthusiast media all the time, as they interview all the "dreamers" who were brought here as children, and have performed miraculously in academia and the military. "

    Heaven forbid that we actually look at the countries they came from and see the paradises that they want to bring with them. If you don't have the capability to create and maintain a successful society where you are, why would anyone think you can do it in a different geographical location? Maybe we should look at who created their country and who created ours. ooooh....he's a racist.

    ReplyDelete